Srinagar:Understanding the relations between the two A revolutionary restructuring of taxation and revenue collection has hit India with optimism and promises benefits to the citizens across the board. It is like a panacea for multiple challenges India faced in collection of revenue from people . Commerce, trading and industry has advanced to such proportions that any one window solution is impossible. We recall in this miniature state of Jammu & Kashmir, one stream of collection worked with the help of local numberdar of the village who collected a fourth of all produce from the farmer deposited this in state granary. The produce was sold and the money filled the coffers of state treasury. Roughly 4 million rupees was spent by allocation, a million to the army, two for the ruler to defray expenses for his luxuries and one million for developments. GST for India will benefit the population in simplifying and incorporating central excise duty with commercial tax, Value added tax, sales tax, tax on food, entertainment, purchases, advertisement, gains from lotteries etc. The income tax officers were a prize posting and ended up very rich in retirement. No more now that there will be a dual control of all transactions like sale transfers, purchases, barter, leasing, import of goods and services. The two controlling tiers are central and state or CGST and SGST and the end product is revenue generated as one tax in the shape and form of one law generating capital to one recipient, the government. The consumer states will benefit with a simplified one tax on the bill but for Kashmir notwithstanding being a consumer state with no manufacturing base, no value added commodities will still be a loser. There is no market place where trading goes on, Kashmir will never be able to compete with any other city or market because there is no industry or manufacturing, no railhead and still considered in the oblivion of a hill station . GST may not be suitable for Kashmir. Have they got a choice is we focus our inquiry on. India is a federal republic and delegates powers to sub-national territories like states unlike unitary republics except defense, foreign affairs and communications. Constitution of India (COI) part XI defines power between the union and states except Jammu & Kashmir. Article 370 read with Appendix 1 & 11 order (1956) jurisdiction envisaging taxation laws is outside the defense, foreign relations and communications as the given jurisdiction for the state. J&K would enjoy autonomous economic and taxation laws. It is incumbent for GST to be valid to implement the policy concurrently between the Union CGST and state SGST. This is only valid if there is an amendment sanctioned by the President of India. The COI A-370 permits India to make temporary provisions in J&K and make laws limited to

1.Those matters in the Union List and Concurrent List which in consultation with the State government are declared by the President of India to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession (IOA) 1947

2.Such other matters in the Union List with concurrence of the State are declared by the President of India may by order specify complete reading of the Article 370 reveals that Government of India cannot enforce any law on the State of J&K without the approval or concurrence of the government of J&K except in the case of Defense, Foreign Relations or Communications. In terms of COI provision of the 7th Schedule list 1 Entry 84 Central Excise duty is levied on all article manufactured except Alcohol for human consumption. (Amendment order 1954 & 1955. This order may not have been received well in Kashmir. The Finance Act 1994 Services Act is not applicable for the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

The conclusion of this discourse dwells on the subject of adoption of GST and all central laws generally except in cases where are thoroughly debated in public domain if the government is ultra vires or by elected legislature established to govern. A consensus is essential as a mandatory requirement and an antecedent prelude to adoption. The government cannot take a nonchalant view of this procedure because the public at large will hold the participants in these decisions responsible. This adoption may also sanctify the other peremptory central laws that have been enforced on the State over the past years in the face of the uncertainties that surround the legitimacy of the erstwhile and present elected legislature.